So how this apply to God? You're saying its unlikely that God, karma, heaven/hell, a soul exists based on what?
Its like explaining to a fool how electromagnetism exists before its verifiable or measurable...such fools
How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
So how this apply to God? You're saying its unlikely that God, karma, heaven/hell, a soul exists based on what?
Its like explaining to a fool how electromagnetism exists before its verifiable or measurable...such fools
Wrong.
Again, you completely fail to comprehend logic.
In the simplest possible terms: there is more evidence to support the hypothesis that there is no god, than there is to support that there is a god.
Belief, has nothing to do with it.
What you're asking for is illogical: evidence of non-evidence.
Look, I'm no atheist, but in fairness to both parties, if you're going to discuss, at least apply some logic, instead of witty banter and vacuous definitions.
We might hazard a guess at how theists come up with their explanations for atheistic worldviews. One possibility: Most theists disbelieve in one or more gods - the ones they don't believe in. Maybe this disbelief is a matter of faith, for them - they don't reject these deities by reason or perception or wisdom of the world, but by faith in a competing and exclusive deity. So they project unto others their own criterion for disbelief.
The prevalence of this kind of argument from theists might be one of the features of theistic belief that pushes many people away, that causes active rejection of a deity rather than merely an inability to see any sense in one - they don't want to join a belief system that might so badly cripple their own thinking.
I would have to agree with you here iceaura, but the psychological force behind this kind of thinking can be succinctly summed up thusly: fear.
Really...then whats the evidence?
Also if something's unverifiable, then your argument fails horribly, if something is unverifiable then there can't be evidence by default, though this is not indication that something is false (logically)...I know you atheists hate rationality and logic and enjoy personal incredulity ("oh it just sounds like a fantasy...case closed"), but thats what it is logically...
So wtf are you saying? You ignore the possibilty of consciousness existing indepdently of the brain because it contradicts your atheistic faith? Yeah, thats it...
??
You seem to be confused as to what logic is.
If something is unverifiable, all that one can conclude is that it is improbable, like god.
So if you start an assumption on the basis that the H[sub]a[/sub] is true, that provides a better basis for testing the H[sub]0[/sub]? Isn't that a Bayesian inference?
No you don't, you must be using the atheistic logic which is "unverifiability = false" ROFL....but sorry in the reality (which atheists avoid) and in logic and rationality, unverifiability simply indicates that there's no way of knowing if something is true or false....basically EVERYTHING we know to be true in science today was unverifiable at some point, this didn't indicate that it was false, but the foolish atheist (such fools) would really believe that it was false until proven true, because they think evidence causes something to become true, such fools, I wonder when they'll wake up
Right now you're using an argument from ignorance, which is what atheism 100% based upon, nothing more than pure ignorance
Incorrect.
Again.
And, more to the point, there's no such thing as 'atheistic logic'. Logic simply is.
Here, you are correct. As I've already stated, this is a determination of probabilities. And note that it is not foolish to err on the side of greatest probability rather, it's foolish to err on the other side. 'False until proven true' (as you put it) is the correct methodology for determining probability (which, interestingly, is also the entire reasoning behind your ability to discuss this online, viz.: technology).
Absolutely incorrect. An argument ad ignorantiam must assert A given the absence of evidence for not A. I make no such claim. I am asserting B, in favour of A.
(Mind, this is me personally, an agnostic, not an atheist. If I were an atheist, then I would indeed be open to your charge. Regardless, you miss the point: to deny god simply because there is no evidence for not-god would indeed be foolish, only if there was no other option).Oh sorry I didn't realise you were making an extremely insightful point.Its always wondrous to me how confused atheists are about obvious and direct concepts.
e.g. This is God---> .
Now what is your opinion on that?
My pointing out of VitalOne's dishonesty is actually a follow-on from previous discussions.I think it is highly unlikely that your full stop is a god so I lack the belief that it is. It really isn't that complicated. Some theists just try to make it seem that way in a desperate attempt to equate atheism with their beliefs.
Last edited:
Oh sorry I didn't realise you were making an extremely insightful point.
I think it is highly unlikely that your full stop is a god so I lack the belief that it is. It really isn't that complicated. Some theists just try to make it seem that way in a desperate attempt to equate atheism with their beliefs.
How do you consider something highly unlikely and yet lack belief in it?
I lack the belief in the existence of god/gods because there is no evidence for such entities. I think it is possible that god/gods exist though I think it is unlikely.
Think of a mythical beast that you think may have possibly existed at one time. I'm not mocking here, just trying to draw an analogy. Your opinion on that beast would be similar to my opinion on gods. Sure their existence is possible but, until there is evidence, I will lack the belief.
Think of a mythical beast that you think may have possibly existed at one time. I'm not mocking here, just trying to draw an analogy. Your opinion on that beast would be similar to my opinion on gods. Sure their existence is possible but, until there is evidence, I will lack the belief.
Last edited:
Faith is also unconditional trust (usually in an authority).
This is typically how truth acceptance works amongst atheists:
...GENERIC IDEA OF GOD..................SPECIFIC CLAIM OF GOD
_________________________________________________
1 | Unknown.....................................Unknown
2 | Unknown.....................................False (based on evidence)
3 | Unknown.....................................False (based on faith)
4 | False (based on faith).................False (based on evidence)
5 | False (based on faith).................False (based on faith)
Most atheists (I would guesstimate in the 85%-95% range) fall under 1 and 2. The rest (a minority) fall under 3, 4, and 5.
I suspect that the minority the question applies to gets faith from the same place as theists.
For me, it was a good comprehension of subjective vs. objective, a good education, and the glaring absence of evidence + presence of contradictory evidence for all human claims of 'God'.
Sorry you have it all wrong, an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.
A-Theist.
The "A" prefix means without/non/aint got no.
As in....
Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
Amoral=without morals.(not a belief it's not moral )
Apolitical=not political.(not a belief it's not political)
Atypical=not typical.(not a belief it's not typical)
Asymmetrical=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)
thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it.
thanks to susan
A brief consideration
This is something that disturbs me about inquiries against atheism:
We must at least acknowledge that some atheists have had the good fortune to never be conditioned to believe in God.
My daughter's maternal grandparents, for instance, like to pretend that they don't preach to her. I don't object that these are demonstrative, praying Christians, but I do object to the notion that teaching my daughter that Jesus is a real person you can talk to isn't preaching. And I do object to the idea that keeping the shelves stocked with children's titles like A Child's Steps to Jesus isn't preaching.
To the other, my brother and I were raised in a family of holiday Lutherans; we had Christmas albums by Evie, albums by Bill and Gloria Gaither; we were sent classes to become confirmed Lutherans. Hell, I even went on to attend a Jesuit high school. My brother might encapsulate his rejection of that faith with a general dismissal that it's not worth trying to figure out the mess people have made of it, and I agree. The thing is that in order to believe the faith we were taught, and also the faith we encounter in the world at large, we have to pretend that the words of the Bible are different than they are.
For myself, any number of factors contribute to the rejection of Christian faith. One is the absolute ineffectiveness of God; throughout history, God's stable Truth has been so variously interpreted that it has become meaningless. Recognizing that "what God says" changes like a mood, it becomes hard to believe in the latest-greatest assertion of what that truth is. The idea that we don't know what God truly believes--e.g., don't know how to interpret God's word--is reasonable, except that its application doesn't hold up. The "truth" of what God says tends to be most flexible in a manner that, coincidentally, licenses people's dark sides.
Take, for instance, the idea of being saved. For some people, it's as simple as "belief", and they will remind us that acts alone won't get us into heaven. Yet, strangely, this belief seems anemic, nearly two-dimensional, for many of the people who believe, and argue against the value of one's acts tend to act in ways that Jesus advised against. For example, we might consider the ongoing debate about homosexuality. The "Christian right" refuses two very important principles of Jesus' ministry:
This is the first refused principle.
Note: Compare both these passages to Matthew 25.31-ff; the theme of getting what one gives is repeated in Jesus' considerations of the Judgment: "Truly, I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to me" (excerpt Mt. 25.40, NASB).
This is the second refused principle.
Modern Christians, much as their predecessors in history, seek to influence or be the state. Do they believe that Jesus will save them? Most, probably. (We can't say all; human diversity demands the faithful doubter.) But what will be their judgment? Will the King fix the rules against them in order to foster judgment and condemnation?
The thing is that the situation does not demand belief or acts. Belief demands acts. Do we believe the dictator who calls his nation a free republic? How many Americans actually accept the argument from Muslim quarters that social restrictions against women, ranging from education to details of dress, and sometimes enforced at the stake of torture, mutilation, or death, are designed and implemented as a measure of respect toward women? If it is just a matter of claiming belief, what of Joseph Kony? We see an incongruity in the assertion of belief and the actions involved.
With Christians, it seems that many--and perhaps these are the ones who congregate most frequently and vociferously in the arena of public discourse--do not accept that their belief in Jesus includes abiding by his teachings. Many sound to assert that being Christian in name only is sufficient; their belief is that Jesus will save them, no matter what, as long as they believe he will.
This is but one example of how the truth of God seems flexible in a manner that licenses people's dark sides. To consider recent ballot outcomes, or even a church's decision to not offer services to the dead, it seems that these Christians do not trust God. The homosexual, as the consideration has it, appears to be born a homosexual. To what end God proposes to create something He despises is between God and the individual. This is not enough for the activist homophobe Christians, who may well fear that God will forgive the fags, and thus want for themselves a chance to punish and feel righteous.
How widespread, then, is the failure of God's word? Is it really effective in the first place if the failure is so influential and its temptations so convincing? We certainly might invoke the Enemy.
But this comes back to the point about the words in the Bible. There are many puzzles surrounding the idea of Satan, not the least of which concerns his role at Eden. There are still those who reject that Satan and the Serpent are the same, and that's fine; the disaster at Eden raises a question in a context separate from the Devil, and we'll consider that in a moment. But it seems to require farfetched definitions of words and interpretations of the story to explain how (A) God did not lie to Adam, and (B) the Serpent lied to Eve. Additionally, I don't think I've ever encountered a Christian's description of the Book of Job that accurately reflects the wording. (Given that many Christians will fall back to one or another reference book's assertions about ancient languages and diverse translations of the Bible, it is a wonder that we even bother with an English-language version.) The Book of Job is generally described in terms of Job's test of faith and a defeat of Satan, yet this concept of defeat requires two presumptions that many Christians find difficult to justify; difficult enough, in fact, that most reject that the conflict exists, thereby describing a story not represented by the text.
The two points that demand consideration are the role of Satan and the definition of faith. The latter is the easier course; starting at chapter 38, God descends in a storm to lecture Job on his lack of faith. For most of us, including most of our atheists, if the sky suddenly went haywire and chewed us out, the question of faith would have different parameters than it does at present. The other point, the role of Satan, involves questioning a cultural standard; even the Wikipedia entry regarding the Book of Job repeats a seeming error of common vernacular:
Pick a version of the Bible. I don't care which one. Show me a version in which God permits Satan to torment Job. Wikipedia, as well as common vernacular, repeats the error: "Satan challenges YHVH by saying that Job's belief is only built upon what material goods he is given, and that his faith will disappear as soon as they are taken from him. And YHVH accepts the challenge."
At no point does God accept Satan's challenge. Whether accepting the challenge or permitting Satan to torment Job, the reality, according to the text, is that Satan told God to stretch out his own hand against Job, and God's response was to order Satan to carry out the torments:
The answer to how we might connect God's hand to Job is the obvious. In Job 1.6, Satan--"the adversary"--presents himself alongside the sons of God; in verse 12, God commands Satan to torment Job. Clearly, Satan is a servant of God, and seemingly one in decent standing.
And it is only by acknowledging that Satan--also known in common vernacular as the Devil, the Prince of Darkness, the Prince of Evil, &c.--is a willing servant of God that we might formulate that God actually accepted Satan's challenge.
What does this mean, then, in terms of the Serpent in Genesis? If the Serpent is Satan, then we must consider the possibility that its actions are by God's will. This is hardly an extreme notion in the history of Christianity; some suppressed texts go so far as to cast the Serpent as a liberator, hero, or force for good. Biblically, however, even the docile notion that Satan is an instrument of God's will presents certain problems. In Genesis 3, for instance, God considers his newly-enlightened creations:
It would seem rather odd, if the Serpent was Satan, and Satan an instrument of God's will, that the result of God's will should compel God to fret that humankind might rise to equal Him. This is, of course, by His own declaration, a jealous God who demands primacy and is willing to threaten children (Exodus 20.4-6).
Enter Dr. Jack Blanco, and this is rather quite amazing. I no longer have access to a copy of the book, and, frankly, am not rushing out to grab a new one. The thing is that theologians both Christian and infidel look dubiously on Bible paraphrases, and Blanco's The Clear Word is an excellent example of why. In discussing Genesis 3.22-23, Blanco explains that the "Us" God refers to is none other than His triune self; additionally, Blanco hands many critics of Biblical faith a most astonishing gift, stating that the fall of man is part of a divine plan. If we accept that Satan is the Serpent, and also an instrument of God's will, the notion of the fall being part of God's will becomes the leading candidate for explaining what happened at Eden. And this, as we might imagine, is a distressing thought to many Christians.
This state of affairs seems counterintuitive; what are we to make of the famous verses from John 3?
Note: Considering the appearance of incongruity in faith without demonstration, it is worth pointing out that John 3.17 reinforces Jesus' teaching against judgment among people: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him" (NASB).
I pause at this point because I recognize that the above constitutes a complicated and long-winded consideration of a fairly basic question. But that is part of my point: this all springs from one question that the present common faith cannot resolve. And there are many questions to serve as starting points for doubt. If this, also, is part of the plan, that people should spend their lives besieged by false prophets given the trust of dominance over the world, struggling against various obstacles, and playing for various stakes that have in history included rape, torture, and death, all in order that one day, when the unrighteous are dissembled, and thus with comfort submit to the God they have discovered according to His will, then we must join the authors of the Gnostic Testimony of Truth in wondering, "But what sort is this God?"
Should anyone wonder if some simply look upon the tangled nest of Christian faith and dismiss it as a hopeless mess? Consider the state of American politics; the sound-bite era has left people feeling smart for understanding the two sentences of a bullet point. Media presentation formats necessarily proscribe the breadth of consideration; public media leads daily news in the U.S., with NPR seeking to give about seven minutes to a story, compared to two minutes for other outlets. Newspapers are physically confined, and the internet era has not yet compelled people to stare into blazing radiation for hours at a time to read the many pages that can be devoted to any single question or issue. With such simplistic articles of faith as we see in the common vernacular, is it any wonder that people shy away from more complicated considerations?
And this is one question about one religion. By the time an atheist gets done cutting through the realities behind the cultural pressures toward faith, is it any wonder that he, like so many others, prefers to leave the detail work to the theologians who pretend to actually enjoy such drudgery?
To presume that emergence into atheism is so simplistic as waking up one day with a feeling or desire is demeaning. For many, if not most emergent atheists, that first day and feeling is the beginning of a fairly arduous road. It takes great effort to overcome such prevalent social conditioning, to actually consider what one believes as opposed to how best to show one's belief.
Given the inefficacy of the word of God even among those who proclaim faith, what, other than unreliable promises, have the evangelists to offer by way of invitation?
Asking anyone to undertake such trials in order to assess every religious assertion that comes their way is unrealistic at best. If one is so fortunate as to recognize from their studies certain defining aspects of redemptive monotheism, such flags should be sufficient to dismiss other religious assertions. Only a genuine divine revelation will be capable of answering properly all the questions that arise. In the meantime, be there a God who so loves the world, He might consider knocking to see who answers. (It worked for Job.) After all, there seems no point in knocking desperately on every door. If God cannot be deceived, if God knows what is in a person's heart, He will see through the desperate, greedy scrabbling on behalf of one's own soul, and judge it accordingly.
____________________
Notes:
This is something that disturbs me about inquiries against atheism:
Vital One said:
We must at least acknowledge that some atheists have had the good fortune to never be conditioned to believe in God.
My daughter's maternal grandparents, for instance, like to pretend that they don't preach to her. I don't object that these are demonstrative, praying Christians, but I do object to the notion that teaching my daughter that Jesus is a real person you can talk to isn't preaching. And I do object to the idea that keeping the shelves stocked with children's titles like A Child's Steps to Jesus isn't preaching.
To the other, my brother and I were raised in a family of holiday Lutherans; we had Christmas albums by Evie, albums by Bill and Gloria Gaither; we were sent classes to become confirmed Lutherans. Hell, I even went on to attend a Jesuit high school. My brother might encapsulate his rejection of that faith with a general dismissal that it's not worth trying to figure out the mess people have made of it, and I agree. The thing is that in order to believe the faith we were taught, and also the faith we encounter in the world at large, we have to pretend that the words of the Bible are different than they are.
For myself, any number of factors contribute to the rejection of Christian faith. One is the absolute ineffectiveness of God; throughout history, God's stable Truth has been so variously interpreted that it has become meaningless. Recognizing that "what God says" changes like a mood, it becomes hard to believe in the latest-greatest assertion of what that truth is. The idea that we don't know what God truly believes--e.g., don't know how to interpret God's word--is reasonable, except that its application doesn't hold up. The "truth" of what God says tends to be most flexible in a manner that, coincidentally, licenses people's dark sides.
Take, for instance, the idea of being saved. For some people, it's as simple as "belief", and they will remind us that acts alone won't get us into heaven. Yet, strangely, this belief seems anemic, nearly two-dimensional, for many of the people who believe, and argue against the value of one's acts tend to act in ways that Jesus advised against. For example, we might consider the ongoing debate about homosexuality. The "Christian right" refuses two very important principles of Jesus' ministry:
• Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye .... For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened. Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7.1-12, NASB)
• And do not judge and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. Give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, they will pour into your lap. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return. (Luke 6.37-38, NASB)
• And do not judge and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. Give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, they will pour into your lap. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return. (Luke 6.37-38, NASB)
This is the first refused principle.
Note: Compare both these passages to Matthew 25.31-ff; the theme of getting what one gives is repeated in Jesus' considerations of the Judgment: "Truly, I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to me" (excerpt Mt. 25.40, NASB).
• Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (excerpt Mt. 22.21, RSV)
This is the second refused principle.
Modern Christians, much as their predecessors in history, seek to influence or be the state. Do they believe that Jesus will save them? Most, probably. (We can't say all; human diversity demands the faithful doubter.) But what will be their judgment? Will the King fix the rules against them in order to foster judgment and condemnation?
The thing is that the situation does not demand belief or acts. Belief demands acts. Do we believe the dictator who calls his nation a free republic? How many Americans actually accept the argument from Muslim quarters that social restrictions against women, ranging from education to details of dress, and sometimes enforced at the stake of torture, mutilation, or death, are designed and implemented as a measure of respect toward women? If it is just a matter of claiming belief, what of Joseph Kony? We see an incongruity in the assertion of belief and the actions involved.
With Christians, it seems that many--and perhaps these are the ones who congregate most frequently and vociferously in the arena of public discourse--do not accept that their belief in Jesus includes abiding by his teachings. Many sound to assert that being Christian in name only is sufficient; their belief is that Jesus will save them, no matter what, as long as they believe he will.
This is but one example of how the truth of God seems flexible in a manner that licenses people's dark sides. To consider recent ballot outcomes, or even a church's decision to not offer services to the dead, it seems that these Christians do not trust God. The homosexual, as the consideration has it, appears to be born a homosexual. To what end God proposes to create something He despises is between God and the individual. This is not enough for the activist homophobe Christians, who may well fear that God will forgive the fags, and thus want for themselves a chance to punish and feel righteous.
How widespread, then, is the failure of God's word? Is it really effective in the first place if the failure is so influential and its temptations so convincing? We certainly might invoke the Enemy.
But this comes back to the point about the words in the Bible. There are many puzzles surrounding the idea of Satan, not the least of which concerns his role at Eden. There are still those who reject that Satan and the Serpent are the same, and that's fine; the disaster at Eden raises a question in a context separate from the Devil, and we'll consider that in a moment. But it seems to require farfetched definitions of words and interpretations of the story to explain how (A) God did not lie to Adam, and (B) the Serpent lied to Eve. Additionally, I don't think I've ever encountered a Christian's description of the Book of Job that accurately reflects the wording. (Given that many Christians will fall back to one or another reference book's assertions about ancient languages and diverse translations of the Bible, it is a wonder that we even bother with an English-language version.) The Book of Job is generally described in terms of Job's test of faith and a defeat of Satan, yet this concept of defeat requires two presumptions that many Christians find difficult to justify; difficult enough, in fact, that most reject that the conflict exists, thereby describing a story not represented by the text.
The two points that demand consideration are the role of Satan and the definition of faith. The latter is the easier course; starting at chapter 38, God descends in a storm to lecture Job on his lack of faith. For most of us, including most of our atheists, if the sky suddenly went haywire and chewed us out, the question of faith would have different parameters than it does at present. The other point, the role of Satan, involves questioning a cultural standard; even the Wikipedia entry regarding the Book of Job repeats a seeming error of common vernacular:
Pick a version of the Bible. I don't care which one. Show me a version in which God permits Satan to torment Job. Wikipedia, as well as common vernacular, repeats the error: "Satan challenges YHVH by saying that Job's belief is only built upon what material goods he is given, and that his faith will disappear as soon as they are taken from him. And YHVH accepts the challenge."
At no point does God accept Satan's challenge. Whether accepting the challenge or permitting Satan to torment Job, the reality, according to the text, is that Satan told God to stretch out his own hand against Job, and God's response was to order Satan to carry out the torments:
Satan's challenge:
• "But put forth Thy hand now and touch all that he has" (excerpt Job 1.11, NASB)
• "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath" (KJV)
• "But put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he has" (RSV)
• "But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has" (NIV)
God's reply:
• "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." (excerpt Job 1.12, NASB)
• "Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand." (KJV)
• "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand." (RSV)
• "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." (NASB)
• "But put forth Thy hand now and touch all that he has" (excerpt Job 1.11, NASB)
• "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath" (KJV)
• "But put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he has" (RSV)
• "But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has" (NIV)
God's reply:
• "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." (excerpt Job 1.12, NASB)
• "Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand." (KJV)
• "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand." (RSV)
• "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." (NASB)
The answer to how we might connect God's hand to Job is the obvious. In Job 1.6, Satan--"the adversary"--presents himself alongside the sons of God; in verse 12, God commands Satan to torment Job. Clearly, Satan is a servant of God, and seemingly one in decent standing.
And it is only by acknowledging that Satan--also known in common vernacular as the Devil, the Prince of Darkness, the Prince of Evil, &c.--is a willing servant of God that we might formulate that God actually accepted Satan's challenge.
What does this mean, then, in terms of the Serpent in Genesis? If the Serpent is Satan, then we must consider the possibility that its actions are by God's will. This is hardly an extreme notion in the history of Christianity; some suppressed texts go so far as to cast the Serpent as a liberator, hero, or force for good. Biblically, however, even the docile notion that Satan is an instrument of God's will presents certain problems. In Genesis 3, for instance, God considers his newly-enlightened creations:
It would seem rather odd, if the Serpent was Satan, and Satan an instrument of God's will, that the result of God's will should compel God to fret that humankind might rise to equal Him. This is, of course, by His own declaration, a jealous God who demands primacy and is willing to threaten children (Exodus 20.4-6).
Enter Dr. Jack Blanco, and this is rather quite amazing. I no longer have access to a copy of the book, and, frankly, am not rushing out to grab a new one. The thing is that theologians both Christian and infidel look dubiously on Bible paraphrases, and Blanco's The Clear Word is an excellent example of why. In discussing Genesis 3.22-23, Blanco explains that the "Us" God refers to is none other than His triune self; additionally, Blanco hands many critics of Biblical faith a most astonishing gift, stating that the fall of man is part of a divine plan. If we accept that Satan is the Serpent, and also an instrument of God's will, the notion of the fall being part of God's will becomes the leading candidate for explaining what happened at Eden. And this, as we might imagine, is a distressing thought to many Christians.
This state of affairs seems counterintuitive; what are we to make of the famous verses from John 3?
Note: Considering the appearance of incongruity in faith without demonstration, it is worth pointing out that John 3.17 reinforces Jesus' teaching against judgment among people: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him" (NASB).
• • •
I pause at this point because I recognize that the above constitutes a complicated and long-winded consideration of a fairly basic question. But that is part of my point: this all springs from one question that the present common faith cannot resolve. And there are many questions to serve as starting points for doubt. If this, also, is part of the plan, that people should spend their lives besieged by false prophets given the trust of dominance over the world, struggling against various obstacles, and playing for various stakes that have in history included rape, torture, and death, all in order that one day, when the unrighteous are dissembled, and thus with comfort submit to the God they have discovered according to His will, then we must join the authors of the Gnostic Testimony of Truth in wondering, "But what sort is this God?"
Should anyone wonder if some simply look upon the tangled nest of Christian faith and dismiss it as a hopeless mess? Consider the state of American politics; the sound-bite era has left people feeling smart for understanding the two sentences of a bullet point. Media presentation formats necessarily proscribe the breadth of consideration; public media leads daily news in the U.S., with NPR seeking to give about seven minutes to a story, compared to two minutes for other outlets. Newspapers are physically confined, and the internet era has not yet compelled people to stare into blazing radiation for hours at a time to read the many pages that can be devoted to any single question or issue. With such simplistic articles of faith as we see in the common vernacular, is it any wonder that people shy away from more complicated considerations?
And this is one question about one religion. By the time an atheist gets done cutting through the realities behind the cultural pressures toward faith, is it any wonder that he, like so many others, prefers to leave the detail work to the theologians who pretend to actually enjoy such drudgery?
To presume that emergence into atheism is so simplistic as waking up one day with a feeling or desire is demeaning. For many, if not most emergent atheists, that first day and feeling is the beginning of a fairly arduous road. It takes great effort to overcome such prevalent social conditioning, to actually consider what one believes as opposed to how best to show one's belief.
Given the inefficacy of the word of God even among those who proclaim faith, what, other than unreliable promises, have the evangelists to offer by way of invitation?
Asking anyone to undertake such trials in order to assess every religious assertion that comes their way is unrealistic at best. If one is so fortunate as to recognize from their studies certain defining aspects of redemptive monotheism, such flags should be sufficient to dismiss other religious assertions. Only a genuine divine revelation will be capable of answering properly all the questions that arise. In the meantime, be there a God who so loves the world, He might consider knocking to see who answers. (It worked for Job.) After all, there seems no point in knocking desperately on every door. If God cannot be deceived, if God knows what is in a person's heart, He will see through the desperate, greedy scrabbling on behalf of one's own soul, and judge it accordingly.
____________________
Notes:
Bible versions:
Wikipedia. "Book of Job". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job
-- "Joseph Kony". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony
"The Testimony of Truth". Nag Hammadi Library. Giverson, Søren and Birger A. Pearson, trans. See http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/testruth.html
• NASB - see http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=49&lang=2
• KJV - see http://www.blueletterbible.org/
• RSV - see http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
• NIV - see http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31&lang=2
• KJV - see http://www.blueletterbible.org/
• RSV - see http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
• NIV - see http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31&lang=2
Wikipedia. "Book of Job". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job
-- "Joseph Kony". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony
"The Testimony of Truth". Nag Hammadi Library. Giverson, Søren and Birger A. Pearson, trans. See http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/testruth.html
Last edited:
I choose not to believe in god because there is NO solid proof. In my opinion faith is crap, you can have faith and just believe there are flying monkeys in another galaxy. However, until NASA has reports of flying monkeys, I'm not believing it. There isn't evidence proving that flying monkeys aren't in other galaxy's so it could just be true! Hell, I bet Elvis is still alive.